SEBI Dismisses RTI Appeal on PDS Limited Disclosures

Case Details

This is an order from the Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005, at the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI).

• Appeal Number: Appeal No. 6846 of 2026
• Appellant: Deepak Kasana
• Respondent: CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai
• Date of Order Issuance: May 21, 2026
• Date of Appellant's RTI Application: March 28, 2026 (received via RTI MIS portal)
• Date of Respondent's (CPIO) Reply: April 21, 2026
• Date of First Appeal Filed by Appellant: April 22, 2026 (Registration No. SEBIH/A/E/26/00148)
• Appellate Authority: Ruchi Chojer

There is no financial impact, penalty, or settlement amount mentioned in this order. The order pertains to the dismissal of an appeal regarding the provision of information.

Persons Involved

• Deepak Kasana: The appellant who filed the original RTI application and the subsequent first appeal.
• CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai: The Central Public Information Officer at SEBI, Mumbai, who was the respondent and provided the initial reply to the RTI application.
• Ruchi Chojer: The Appellate Authority under the RTI Act at SEBI who issued this order.
• The order also references rulings by the Hon'ble Central Information Commission (CIC) in the matters of Azad Singh vs. CPIO, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Lakshminarayanan R vs. SEBI.

Violations and Allegations

This is not an order addressing violations by a company. It is an appellate order reviewing the response to an RTI application. The appellant's ground for appeal was that he was provided "incomplete, misleading or false information" by the SEBI CPIO in response to his queries about PDS Limited.

The original RTI application sought information on:

1. Whether PDS Limited reported a financial loss, impairment, write-off, or exceptional item of ~INR 105 crore in FY 2024-25 or FY 2025-26.

2. Copies/references of disclosures by PDS to exchanges/SEBI regarding financial irregularities, fraud, or forensic audit findings (mentioning PwC).

3. Confirmation of disclosures by PDS regarding legal proceedings in Bangladesh or financial losses from its subsidiary Poeticgem International Limited.

4. Details of any complaints, disclosures, or intimations SEBI received from PDS regarding financial irregularities or employee misconduct in its Bangladesh operations.

5. Confirmation if no such disclosures or filings exist.

Penalties, Settlement Terms & Rulings

There are no penalties or settlement terms imposed by this order. The ruling is on the appeal itself.

• The Appellate Authority concurred with the CPIO's response for Query Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5, ruling that they are in the nature of seeking confirmation/clarification and cannot be construed as 'information' as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The CPIO is not obligated to provide such confirmation.
• For Query No. 2, the Appellate Authority upheld the CPIO's response that the requested information (specific disclosures by a listed entity) is not maintained by SEBI in the ordinary course of business and is therefore not available with them.
• The authority cited the CIC precedent in Azad Singh vs. CPIO which states a CPIO is not supposed to create, interpret, or compile information and is only a communicator of information based on existing records.
• The authority also cited the CIC precedent in Lakshminarayanan R vs. SEBI which establishes that information must be existent and available in the records to be disclosable under the RTI Act.
• Final Ruling: The appeal was dismissed. There was no need to interfere with the decision of the respondent CPIO.

Actions, Compliance, and Future Obligations

No specific corrective actions or future obligations were mandated for PDS Limited or the appellant by this order.

The respondent CPIO had previously informed the appellant that he could refer to the websites of the stock exchanges (BSE/NSE) for the disclosures made by PDS Limited. The Appellate Authority noted this in its order, stating "The appellant may be guided by the same."

Final Ruling and Enforcement

The final decision was the dismissal of the appeal (Appeal No. 6846 of 2026). The order of the respondent CPIO stands. No further enforcement actions are stipulated as the matter was concluded with this appellate order.